York v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. , 95 F.3d 948 ( 1996 )

PUBLISH
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 8/27/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA YORK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 95-6068
AMERICAN TELEPHONE &
TELEGRAPH CO.;
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL UNION NO. 2021; ROBERT
LEE,
Defendants - Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(D. Ct. No. CIV-94-177-R)
Joseph R. Weeks, Oklahoma City University School of Law, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma (Marilyn D. Barringer, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, with him on the
briefs) appearing for the Appellant.
Debra B. Cannon, McKinney, Stringer & Webster, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
(Jim T. Priest, McKinney, Stringer & Webster, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and
Marc E. Manly, Law Vice President and Solicitor General, AT&T Corp., Basking
Ridge, New Jersey, with her on the brief) appearing for Appellee AT&T.
Loren F. Gibson (George J. McCaffrey with her on the brief), Lampkin,
McCaffrey & Tawwater, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma appearing for Appellee IBEW
Local 2021.
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
TACHA, Circuit Judge.
Patricia York sued the American Telephone and Telegraph Company
(“AT&T”), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No.
2021 (“IBEW”), and Robert Lee under Title VII, alleging sex-based disparate
treatment and disparate impact discrimination. A jury found for the defendants,
and the district court denied York’s motion for a new trial. York now appeals the
district court’s (1) refusal to give particular jury instructions, (2) grant of
summary judgment to IBEW on her disparate treatment claim, (3) rulings on her
motions in limine, (4) refusal to take judicial notice of the disparate impact of
AT&T’s two-year experience requirement for the position in question, (5) refusal
to grant a new trial, and (6) grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants
on her public policy claim. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291
and affirm.
I. Background
In July 1992, AT&T posted an advertisement for the position of Group I
Operating Engineer in the powerhouse of the AT&T plant in Oklahoma City,
-2-
Oklahoma. The position involved the operation and maintenance of a variety of
powerhouse machinery, including steam turbines, boilers, chillers, and
compressed air systems, as well as the monitoring of a control panel to prevent an
explosion from occurring in the boilers and steam-driven machinery. The position
entailed considerable responsibility for the safety of property and other workers.
AT&T’s collective bargaining agreement with IBEW required AT&T to fill
vacancies in the Operating Engineer position through the use of a bid procedure,
by which interested employees submitted bids, or applications, for the job. The
agreement obliged AT&T to accept the bid of the most senior applicant meeting
the job qualifications described in the agreement. The job qualifications for the
Operating Engineer position, as replicated in the advertisement for the position,
were:
(1) Completion of an accredited trades training course or equivalent
knowledge and skill acquired by means of practical experience.
(2) Demonstrated ability of basic skills associated with this trade.
In 1989, three years prior to applying for the advertised Operating Engineer
position, York asked Joe Srejma, the powerhouse supervisor at the time, how she
could “get in the boilerhouse.” He stated that she would have to complete a
vocational training course and obtain a Class I license for boiler operation.
Although he did not specifically mention the requirement of prior practical
experience, at the time of their conversation two years of experience was a
-3-
prerequisite for obtaining a Class I license in Oklahoma City.
Initially, AT&T only advertised the job opening within the Oklahoma City
facility. York and seven other employees submitted bids for the position. York
was the only woman among the eight applicants. Robert Lee, the first line
supervisor over the Operating Engineers, interviewed the applicants and
determined that none of them possessed the stipulated minimum qualifications for
the position. York, who had worked for approximately twenty-three years in the
Maintenance Department at the Oklahoma City plant, was the most senior
applicant. She had also completed two vocational courses on low- and high-
pressure boilers and had received a Class I license for boiler operation from the
City of Oklahoma City. However, by the time she received her Class I license
two years experience was no longer a requirement. Consequently, she possessed
no practical experience in the area and thus failed to meet the job qualification of
“skill acquired by means of practical experience.” AT&T’s longstanding hiring
practice had been to require Operating Engineer candidates to possess two years
of experience in order to satisfy this requirement.
After Lee determined that there were no qualified candidates within the
Oklahoma City facility, AT&T human resources personnel placed the job
advertisement on AT&T’s Automated Transfer System (“ATS”), a computer
system that advertises positions nationally within AT&T. Two AT&T employees
-4-
from outside Oklahoma City submitted bids on the ATS. One of these applicants,
R.D. Matthews, had nine years of previous experience as an Operating Engineer
at another AT&T facility and met all of the posted qualifications. AT&T
ultimately selected him for the position.
Prior to the hiring of Matthews, Lee informed York that the experience
requirement was absolute and that she did not meet the posted qualifications for
the position. York then asked her IBEW representatives to file a grievance on her
behalf protesting the determination that she was not qualified. The union
representatives refused to do so, agreeing with AT&T’s view that the collective
bargaining agreement required Operating Engineers to possess practical
experience. At that point, York asked her union representatives to speak with
company management on her behalf to induce them to discontinue the search for
an Operating Engineer and instead create a powerhouse trainee position. York
would then apply for that position. Testimony offered at trial conflicts as to
whether IBEW representatives ever made such a request on York’s behalf. In any
event, IBEW declined to file a grievance against AT&T or officially contest the
company’s decision on this issue. York also made her request directly to Lee.
Lee refused to stop the search for an Operating Engineer and create a trainee
position because he believed that the collective bargaining agreement required
AT&T to first readvertise the Operating Engineer position on the ATS. York then
-5-
brought this suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e, et seq, alleging sex-based disparate treatment and disparate impact
discrimination in AT&T’s hiring practices. After a four-day trial, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on all claims.
York maintains that she understood the first qualification in the
advertisement for the Operating Engineer position to state two alternative, rather
than mandatory, requirements. The qualification reads: “Completion of an
accredited trades training course or equivalent knowledge and skill acquired by
means of practical experience.” York interpreted this language with emphasis on
the word “or” as the division point between the two alternatives. That is, she
believed that either (1) the completion of an accredited training course or (2)
equivalent knowledge and skill acquired by means of practical experience would
have satisfied the qualification. However, the drafters of the agreement, AT&T
and IBEW, intended the emphasis to fall on the word “and.” Understood this
way, the qualification contained two requirements, both of which had to be
satisfied: (1) completion of a training course or equivalent knowledge and (2)
practical experience.
II. The Jury Instructions
We review a district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for
-6-
abuse of discretion. United States v. Lee, 54 F.3d 1534, 1536 (10th Cir.), cert.
denied, 116 S. Ct. 247 (1995). However, we review de novo the question of
whether the court’s instructions, considered as a whole, properly state the
applicable law and focus the jury on the relevant inquiry. Id. York challenges
the instructions offered by the court on four grounds. First, she contends that the
court erred by only presenting the fact-finding framework for assessing indirect
evidence of discrimination laid out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973), and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S. 248 (1981), and not also instructing the jury that a plaintiff may alternatively
show that sexually discriminatory reasons motivated an employer by presenting
direct evidence of discrimination. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston,
469 U.S. 111, 121-22 (1985); Long v. Laramie County Community College Dist.,
840 F.2d 743, 748-49 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988). York did not
raise this objection at trial. In the absence of a proper objection, we review a
district court’s instructions for plain error. Palmer v. Krueger, 897 F.2d 1529,
1532-33 (10th Cir. 1990).
York maintains that she submitted direct evidence of discrimination in the
form of testimony from two witnesses, Patricia Giddens and Mark Sloan.
Giddens testified that prior to the posting of the Operating Engineer
advertisement, she asked Lee whether he was going to hire York for a position in
-7-
the powerhouse. Lee answered, “No, I’m not,” and then explained that there was
not an opening at that time and that York did not yet possess a Class I license.
Sloan testified that, in a conversation with Lee that occurred after York had
already been informed that she was not qualified for the position, he stated to
Lee, “I heard you’re going to be having a female employee.” Lee responded that
“there wasn’t going to be the woman he was asking . . . about.” In both instances,
Lee’s response was ambiguous and may have reflected entirely nondiscriminatory
hiring practices. This evidence does not rise to the level of direct evidence of
discrimination needed to set aside the McDonnell Douglas mode of inquiry.
Indeed, where the Supreme Court has been willing to regard the McDonnell
Douglas test as inapplicable, the employer’s policy has been “discriminatory on
its face,” treating the members of the disadvantaged group differently according
to the very terms of their employment. Trans World Airlines, 469 U.S. at 121.
The district court was therefore correct in directing the jury to apply the
McDonnell Douglas test. See Furr v. AT & T Technologies, 824 F.2d 1537, 1549
(10th Cir. 1987) (describing when the McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable).
York’s second challenge concerns the district court’s refusal to submit her
instruction concerning the term “qualified” in the McDonnell Douglas test. Under
the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff in an employment discrimination case
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case, which may be
-8-
accomplished by showing:
(i) that he belongs to a racial minority [or other class protected under
Title VII]; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which
the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his
qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the
position remained open and the employer continued to seek
applicants from persons of complainant’s qualifications.
McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 (emphasis added). If the plaintiff succeeds
in establishing a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the employer “to
articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s
rejection.” Id. Finally, if the employer succeeds in presenting a
nondiscriminatory reason, the burden returns to the plaintiff to show that the
offered reason is merely a pretext by demonstrating either that a discriminatory
reason more likely motivated the employer or that the employer’s explanation is
unworthy of credence. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256.
York’s challenges the district court’s instruction regarding the components
of a prima facie case. The court stated that the plaintiff must prove, among other
things, “[t]hat Plaintiff was qualified for the position of Operating Engineer.”
York asked that the jury be instructed that to be “qualified,” the plaintiff need
only show that she possessed the minimal qualifications that the jury deemed
necessary for safe and effective job performance. In effect, York’s requested
instructions would have directed the jury to determine the appropriate
qualifications for the job rather than accept the employer’s stated qualifications.
-9-
York’s requested instruction misconstrues the first stage of the McDonnell
Douglas test. It is not the fact finder’s task to assess which of an employer’s
stipulated qualifications ought to be required of applicants for a particular
position. “Employers are given wide discretion in setting job standards and
requirements and in deciding whether applicants meet those standards.” Hickman
v. Flood & Peterson Ins., Inc., 766 F.2d 422, 425 (10th Cir. 1985). As long as the
qualifications offered by the employer are reasonable and have been consistently
applied to all applicants for the position, as was the case here, there is no reason
for the fact finder to supplant the employer’s list of qualifications with its own.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting York’s requested
instruction.
York’s third challenge to the jury instructions concerns the court’s refusal
to instruct the jury that it was free to draw a negative inference where a party fails
to produce evidence that is under that party’s control. We review this decision
for abuse of discretion. See Wilson v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 893
F.2d 1149, 1150 (10th Cir. 1990). York proposed a standard missing witness
instruction: “If a party fails to produce evidence which is under his control and
reasonably available to him and not reasonably available to the adverse party,
then you may infer that the evidence is unfavorable to the party who could have
produced it and did not.” York requested this instruction with regard to her
- 10 -
contention that the collective bargaining agreement language governing the
qualifications for the Operating Engineer position was ambiguous and could have
meant that the practical experience requirement was an alternative to, not an
additional requirement to, the vocational training requirement. She maintains that
AT&T could have presented testimony from officials at AT&T plants in locations
other than Oklahoma City explaining their interpretation of the same collective
bargaining agreement language.
Four factors must be present before a jury may be instructed to draw a
negative inference from a party’s failure to call a particular witness:
(1) the party must have the power to produce the witness; (2) the
witness must not be one who would ordinarily be expected to be
biased against the party; (3) the witness’s testimony must not be
“comparatively unimportant, or cumulative, or inferior to what is
already utilized” in the trial; and (4) the witness must not be equally
available to testify for either side.
Id. at 1150-51 (citations omitted). The party requesting a missing witness
instruction bears the burden of demonstrating that these criteria are satisfied. Id.
at 1151. These four factors apply regardless of whether the requested instruction
directs the jury to draw a negative inference or merely permits the jury to draw a
negative inference. York never demonstrated that the four criteria were satisfied,
and, in any case, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that she could not
have satisfied criteria (3) and (4). Moreover, the district court permitted York’s
counsel to comment in the closing arguments on AT&T’s failure to offer evidence
- 11 -
on how other AT&T facilities interpreted this language. The court did not abuse
its discretion by denying York’s request for the missing witness instruction.
York’s final challenge to the district court’s instructions concerns her
disparate impact discrimination claim regarding AT&T’s requirement of two years
of prior boiler room experience. York requested the court to instruct the jury that
she would be entitled to prevail even if the defendants could establish the
business necessity of the two-year experience requirement, provided that she
could present alternative selection criteria “that would also have served AT&Ts
legitimate needs but without the same disproportionate impact on women.” The
district court rejected this request and instead instructed the jury that, to prevail
on this issue, York had to show that any alternative selection criteria would be
“equally as effective as Defendant AT&T’s experience requirement in achieving
Defendant AT&T’s legitimate employment goals.” The district court’s instruction
correctly stated the plaintiff’s burden in disparate impact cases; as this court has
held, a plaintiff’s alternative selection criteria must be equally effective in
meeting the employer’s legitimate employment goals. Murphy v. Derwinski, 990
F.2d 540, 544 (10th Cir. 1993). The district court, therefore, did not abuse its
discretion in rejecting York’s proposed instruction.
III. The Grant of Summary Judgment to IBEW
- 12 -
York brought two claims against IBEW, alleging that the union (1)
discriminatorily breached its duty of fair representation under Title VII when it
refused to pursue her grievances and (2) acquiesced in AT&T’s disparate
treatment of women and its maintenance of a two-year experience requirement
which had a disparate impact on women. IBEW moved for summary judgment on
both of these claims. On the first claim, the district court denied the motion for
summary judgment as it related to the trainee position and granted the motion
with respect to the Operating Engineer position. On the second claim, the court
granted IBEW’s motion for summary judgment. York now appeals the grant of
summary judgment on these claims. We review the district court’s grant of
summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standard employed by the
district court. Wolf v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 50 F.3d 793, 796 (10th Cir.
1995). Under this standard, mere assertions and conjecture are not enough to
survive summary judgment. Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-
72 (10th Cir. 1988).
We turn first to the breach of fair representation claim. To establishing a
prima facie Title VII claim against a union for a breach of its duty of fair
representation, a plaintiff must show that (1) the employer violated the collective
bargaining agreement with respect to the plaintiff, (2) the union permitted the
violation to go unrepaired, thereby breaching the union’s duty of fair
- 13 -
representation, and (3) there was some indication that the union’s actions were
motivated by discriminatory animus. Babrocky v. Jewel Food Co. & Retail
Meatcutters Union, Local 320, 773 F.2d 857, 868 (7th Cir. 1985). The district
court found that York failed to establish the third element--that IBEW was
motivated by discriminatory animus in declining to pursue her grievance--in that
she failed to submit any evidence demonstrating such motivation on the part of
the union or any evidence from which a reasonable jury could find such
motivation.
York contends that the fact that no other member of the union stood to
benefit from IBEW’s support of AT&T’s interpretation of the collective
bargaining agreement necessarily dictates an inference that discriminatory animus
must have motivated the union’s refusal to contest AT&T’s interpretation. This
contention is flawed. The collective bargaining agreement entitles IBEW to
pursue grievances on any matter “arising with respect to the interpretation and
application of this agreement or other terms and conditions of employment.”
However, IBEW is not compelled, either under this agreement or under Title VII,
to pursue an individual member’s grievance if the union reasonably disagrees with
the basis for that grievance. A union’s statutory duty of fair representation does
not oblige it to take action on every grievance brought by every member. Vaca v.
Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 191-92 (1967). Indeed, if a union could be compelled to
- 14 -
take official action on every grievance, irrespective of merit, the union would
quickly deplete its resources and credibility; and the arbitration machinery would
eventually become overburdened. See id. at 191-92.
For more than twenty years, IBEW had consistently adhered to the
understanding of the collective bargaining agreement shared by AT&T--that
Operating Engineer applicants must possess practical experience. IBEW argues
that it supported the experience requirement because of the significant risks and
responsibility for others’ safety involved in powerhouse operation. IBEW also
notes that the classroom vocational training that York received did not include
instruction in the repair of powerhouse equipment. IBEW has maintained this
position with respect to both male and female applicants. The mere fact that no
other union members possessed interests that were directly adverse to York’s
grievance does not constitute an indication of discriminatory animus on IBEW’s
part where a reasonable basis exists for the union’s belief that a viable grievance
did not exist. The experience requirement is a legitimate, non-discriminatory
qualification for the job, and York failed to present evidence showing that the
requirement was merely a pretext for discrimination.
York also contends that the conversation she had with Srejma, a
conversation of which IBEW was aware, compels the conclusion that IBEW acted
with discriminatory animus. This contention is incorrect, because obtaining a
- 15 -
Class I license entailed acquiring practical experience when the conversation
occurred. Thus, Srejma’s answer implicitly conveyed the experience requirement
to York. Moreover, he indicated in subsequent testimony that he did not intend
his statement to be taken as a complete list of qualifications for the job. The fact
that IBEW did not share York’s strained conclusion that Srejma’s statement of
qualifications was evidence of sexual discrimination by AT&T does not amount to
an indication of discriminatory animus on the part of IBEW.
In addition, York claims that the union acquiesced in AT&T’s allegedly
discriminatory treatment of York and its maintenance of a two-year experience
requirement that had a disparate impact on women. Under Title VII, a union may
not refuse to file a valid discrimination claim against an employer on behalf of
one of its members simply because that member belongs to a particular minority
group. Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 666-69 (1987). We have
held that “[a] union cannot acquiesce in a company’s prohibited employment
discrimination and expect to evade Title VII liability for such discrimination.”
Romero v. Union Pac. R.R., 615 F.2d 1303, 1311 (10th Cir. 1980). However,
mere inaction does not constitute acquiescence. Acquiescence requires (1)
knowledge that prohibited discrimination may have occurred and (2) a decision
not to assert the discrimination claim. See Goodman, 482 U.S. at 669. In this
case, the plaintiff failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could
- 16 -
conclude that IBEW possessed the requisite knowledge. York offered no
evidence establishing either that IBEW knew of intentional discrimination against
women by AT&T management regarding the Operating Engineer position or that
IBEW was aware of any disparate impact effected by the practical experience
requirement.
York argues that the fact that plant management had never employed a
woman in the Operating Engineer position suffices to establish that IBEW knew
that AT&T was intentionally discriminating against female candidates for this
position. Drawing such a conclusion from the mere fact that no women had
worked in the Operating Engineer position requires too many assumptions and
logical leaps. The district court was therefore correct when it concluded that
York had presented no evidence showing that IBEW knew of sex discrimination
by AT&T regarding the position of Operating Engineer.
York also argues that the absence of women in the position suffices to
establish IBEW’s knowledge of the disparate impact of the experience
requirement. This argument also must be rejected. The mere absence of women
is insufficient to show that the experience requirement was the cause of any
disparity in the number of men and women in the position, let alone that IBEW
knew of and acquiesced in any such causality. On this issue as well, the district
court correctly granted summary judgment to defendant IBEW.
- 17 -
IV. York’s Motions In Limine
In her motions in limine, York requested that the district court exclude
evidence relating to: (1) medical treatment she received prior to 1992, specifically
her hospitalization in a psychiatric facility in 1988; (2) bankruptcy proceedings
she commenced in 1985; and (3) divorce proceedings involving her first husband,
which began in 1968 and concluded in 1976, as well as her sexual conduct. The
court rejected these motions and allowed the defendants to inquire into and offer
evidence concerning all of these matters, with the exception of York’s sexual
conduct. York then asked the court to bifurcate the proceedings and try the
liability issue first, allowing the challenged evidence only to come in when the
parties litigated her claims for damages for emotional distress. The court
declined to bifurcate the proceedings. York contends that the court erred, both in
refusing to exclude the evidence and in refusing to bifurcate the trial. We review
a district court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion,
disturbing its ruling only if the ruling was based on a clearly erroneous finding of
fact, an erroneous conclusion of law, or an error of judgment. Cartier v. Jackson,
59 F.3d 1046, 1048 (10th Cir. 1995). As for York’s alternate motion to bifurcate
the proceedings, a district court possesses “broad discretion in deciding whether
to sever issues for trial and the exercise of that discretion will be set aside only if
clearly abused.” Easton v. City of Boulder, 776 F.2d 1441, 1447 (10th Cir. 1985),
- 18 -
cert. denied, 479 U.S. 816 (1986).
In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the
evidence. York sought damages for emotional distress allegedly suffered as a
result of not obtaining the positions that she sought. She contended that she had
become emotionally strained and had lost her self-esteem and enjoyment of life.
The defendants maintained that much, if not all, of York’s emotional distress was
rooted in her past, stemming from events that occurred well before her
unsuccessful bid for the Operating Engineer position in 1992. In particular, they
note that her hospitalization in a psychiatric facility in 1988 was necessitated by
various sources of stress in her life. Because York chose to raise a claim of
emotional distress, it was entirely appropriate for the court to allow the
defendants to introduce evidence of alternate or multiple causes of such distress.
The jury must be permitted to consider such relevant evidence of causation where
damages are claimed for emotional distress. Moreover, it would be inequitable to
allow the plaintiff to introduce selected evidence on the matter but to disallow the
defendants to present evidence supporting their theories of causation. See Hoppe
v. G.D. Searle & Co., 779 F. Supp. 1413, 1419 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). For these
reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying York’s motions
in limine regarding the evidence of alternate causes of emotional distress.
Nor did the court abuse its wide discretion in denying York’s motion to
- 19 -
bifurcate the trial. Such decisions must be made with regard to judicial
efficiency, judicial resources, and the likelihood that a single proceeding will
unduly prejudice either party or confuse the jury. York has not shown that she
was significantly prejudiced by the admission of such evidence or that the
evidence should have been removed from the jury’s consideration in determining
the defendants’ liability.
V. Judicial Notice of the Disparate Impact of the Experience Requirement
At trial, York requested that the court take judicial notice that “few if any
women in the Oklahoma City area would be able to satisfy a two-year experience
requirement.” The court declined to do so. We review a district court’s refusal to
take judicial notice for abuse of discretion. Klein v. Zavaras, 80 F.3d 432, 435
n.5 (10th Cir. 1996).
Judicial notice is an adjudicative device that alleviates the parties’
evidentiary duties at trial, serving as “a substitute for the conventional method of
taking evidence to establish facts.” Grand Opera Co. v. Twentieth Century-Fox
Film Corp., 235 F.2d 303, 307 (7th Cir. 1956). In this instance, before asking the
court to take judicial notice, York had already presented evidence in support of
her contention that few women in the Oklahoma City area would be able to satisfy
the experience requirement. For the court to have taken judicial notice after the
- 20 -
presentation of evidence on the issue would have been redundant.
Moreover, judicial notice was not suitable for this factual assertion.
Judicial notice is appropriate where a matter is “verifiable with certainty.” St.
Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 1979). It
replaces the evidentiary procedure that would otherwise be necessary to establish
“adjudicative fact[s]” that are generally known or “capable of accurate and ready
determination” by resort to reliable sources. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The number
of women in the Oklahoma City area that are able to satisfy AT&T’s Operating
Engineer experience requirement is not generally known; and although it is
determinable, it is not readily so. For this reason as well, we conclude that the
court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to take judicial notice.
VI. The District Court’s Refusal to Grant a New Trial
York moved for a new trial on her claim that the two year experience
requirement had a disparate impact on the promotion of women to the Operating
Engineer position. The district court declined to grant York’s motion. We review
a district court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. Sheets
v. Salt Lake County, 45 F.3d 1383, 1390 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 74
(1995). A district court’s discretion in this area is particularly broad, and its
decision to grant or refuse a motion for a new trial will not be reversed absent a
- 21 -
gross abuse of discretion. Holmes v. Wack, 464 F.2d 86, 89 (10th Cir. 1972).
Where a party moves for a new trial on the ground that the jury verdict is not
supported by the evidence, the verdict must stand unless it is “clearly, decidedly
or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence.” Black v. Hieb’s Enters.,
Inc., 805 F.2d 360, 363 (10th Cir. 1986).
York contends that her statistical evidence, showing that just over six
percent of stationary engineers in Oklahoma and just over ten percent in the
Oklahoma City area are female, established with certainty that AT&T’s two-year
experience requirement produced a disparate impact against women. York also
contends that because AT&T used supervisors without prior experience to operate
the powerhouse on two prior occasions during strikes, AT&T’s asserted business
necessity for the experience requirement was pretextual. In response, the
defendants produced evidence concerning, among other things, the risks
associated with powerhouse operation and the fact that York’s vocational courses
did not provide adequate training in the repair of powerhouse equipment. This
evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that AT&T’s experience
requirement was not pretextual. We cannot say that the jury’s verdict was clearly,
overwhelmingly, or decidedly against the weight of the evidence. To do so would
be to supplant the jury’s consideration of competing facts with our own, a course
upon which district courts and courts of appeals must not embark. The district
- 22 -
court was therefore correct in denying York’s motion for a new trial.
VII. The Grant of Summary Judgment Regarding York’s Public Policy
Claim
The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on York’s
claim that AT&T’s failure to promote her fell within the public policy tort
exception to Oklahoma’s termination-at-will doctrine. York premised her claim
upon the public policy theory articulated in Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 833
P.2d 1218 (Okla. 1992). In that case, the court held that where an employer
discharges an employee in violation of a public policy that is clearly articulated in
constitutional, statutory, or decisional law, the employer may be held liable for a
tortious breach of contractual obligations. Id. at 1225. However, in Sanchez v.
Phillip Morris, Inc., 992 F.2d 244 (10th Cir. 1993), we held that Oklahoma’s
public policy exception to the termination-at-will doctrine was narrowly
constructed and not intended to apply to all Title VII cases. The exception was
limited to wrongful terminations and did not extend to the failure-to-hire context.
Id. at 249. The same analysis applies here in the failure-to-promote context.
Thus, on this claim, as on all of the claims discussed above, the decision of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
- 23 -